NCERT special module says Jinnah, Congress, Mountbatten 'culprits' of India's partition
New Delhi, Aug 16 (PTI): A special module released by the NCERT to mark "Partition Horrors Remembrance Day" has held Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Congress and then Viceroy Lord Mountbatten responsible for India's partition.
The module has also noted that post-Partition, Kashmir emerged as a new problem, which had never existed in India before and created a challenge for the country's foreign policy.
It has also flagged that some countries keep giving aid to Pakistan and exert pressure on India in the name of the Kashmir issue.
"India's Partition happened due to wrong ideas. The party of Indian Muslims, the Muslim League, held a conference in Lahore in 1940. Its leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said that Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures," the module said.
In a section titled "culprits of Partition", the NCERT module said, "Ultimately, on August 15, 1947, India was divided. But this was not the doing of any one person. There were three elements responsible for the Partition of India: Jinnah, who demanded it; second, the Congress, which accepted it; and third, Mountbatten, who implemented it. But Mountbatten proved to be guilty of a major blunder."
"He preponed the date for the transfer of power from June 1948 to August 1947. He persuaded everyone to agree to this. Because of this, complete preparations could not be made before the Partition. The demarcation of the Partition boundaries was also done hastily. For that, Sir Cyril Radcliffe was given only five weeks.
In Punjab, even two days after 15 August 1947, millions of people did not know whether they were in India or in Pakistan. Such haste was a great act of carelessness," it said.
While the module blames Jinnah, it also quotes him saying he never thought it would happen or that he would see Pakistan in his lifetime.
"Later, even Jinnah admitted that he had not expected Partition to happen. He told his aide, 'I never thought it would happen. I never expected to see Pakistan in my lifetime'," it said.
The module quotes Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as saying that the situation in India had become explosive. "India had become a battlefield, and it was better to partition the country than to have a civil war."
It cites Mahatma Gandhi's stance, noting that he opposed Partition but would not resist the Congress' decision through violence. The text states: “He said that he could not be a party to the Partition, but he would not stop Congress from accepting it with violence."
NCERT has published two separate modules -- one for Classes 6 to 8 (middle stage) and another for Classes 9 to 12 (secondary stage). These are supplementary resources in English and Hindi, not part of regular textbooks, and are meant to be used through projects, posters, discussions and debates.
Both modules open with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 2021 message announcing the observance of Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.
Quoting the prime minister's post on X (formerly Twitter), the book mentions, "Partition's pains can never be forgotten. Millions of our sisters and brothers were displaced, and many lost their lives due to mindless hate and violence. In memory of the struggles and sacrifices of our people, 14th August will be observed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day."
The module for middle-stage classes asserts that Partition "was not inevitable" and resulted from "wrong ideas." Patel had called it "bitter medicine," while Nehru described it as "bad" but "unavoidable".
The secondary-stage module traces Partition to Muslim leaders' belief in a separate identity rooted in "political Islam," which, it claims, "rejects any permanent equality with non-Muslims." It states that this ideology drove the Pakistan movement, with Jinnah as its "able lawyer-leader."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
